Agenda item

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance), which seeks agreement from the Panel that the CIL Draft Charging Schedule and associated Draft CIL Instalments Policy should be recommended to Cabinet for approval for it to be subject to an eight-week public consultation exercise, with a view to proceeding to independent examination of the Schedule and subsequent adoption.

Report of the Corporate Director (Public Protection, Planning and Governance) on the proposed consultation on Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) draft charging schedule, which is a locally set planning charge, first implemented nationally in 2010.  This means that local planning authorities can choose to implement to raise contributions from new developments in their area towards the delivery of necessary supporting infrastructure.

A decision was made at the Council’s Cabinet meeting on 4 April 2017 to publish for consultation a Preliminary CIL Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS). The responses to that consultation were reported to Cabinet Planning and Parking Panel on 14 December 2017, when they were noted, and officers indicated that further advice from viability consultants BNPPRE would be sought to see if any changes to the schedule were justified. The Panel also agreed that the timetable for progressing the Welwyn Hatfield CIL should be developed to co-ordinate with the Local Plan timetable.

The report sought agreement from the Panel that the CIL Draft Charging Schedule and associated Draft CIL Instalments Policy should be recommended to Cabinet for approval for it to be subject to an eight-week public consultation exercise, with a view to proceeding to independent examination of the Schedule and subsequent adoption.

Following amendments to the CIL regulations (2010) in 2019, the Draft Charging Schedule is now the first and only statutory stage of consultation required in respect of CIL. Nevertheless, the previous consultation responses to the PDCS have informed the production of the DCS. The consultation on the DCS will set out the type of development which will be liable for CIL and the proposed charging rates.

It was noted that CIL contributions received by the Council can only be spent on infrastructure. The Council is required by recently amended CIL regulations to produce annually a list of all infrastructure projects and the S106 and CIL funding spent on them. This is called the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS).

The main advantage of CIL is that receipts can be used to help fund all sorts of strategic infrastructure – these include major road improvements and other sustainable transport projects such as those identified in the County’s Local Transport Plan. Strategic green infrastructure projects such as the Council’s emerging Green Corridor Masterplan could also be funded. These types of infrastructure would be difficult to fund through multiple Section 106 contributions.

The report noted that an updated study of development viability had been conducted on behalf of the Council by property consultants: BNP Paribas Real Estate (BNPPRE).

The following points were raised and discussed:

·         Clarification was sought on the charging schedule relating £20 per sqm for Class C2 student accommodation and higher rates for Class C3 residential levy charges.  Head of Planning explained the recommended levies were based entirely on viability evidence. 

·         Viability rates were considered and a question was asked how the Council had arrived at £20sqm rate for student accommodation? The yield and comparison to other rates for the Borough were discussed, together with how it matches our OAN.  An example was provided, using Bio Park and the proposed dwelling.  Could staff residency on site be considered as C2 along the lines of new student accommodation?  There would certainly be a fall in the contributions, thus delivering only a quarter of the yield.  An explanation was provided setting out that developers cannot just choose between C2 and C3 class developments. Head of Planning advised that this is a separate issue and will be investigated further. 

·         Clarification was sought on the Hat 1 site.  Would there be any opportunity to acquire CIL contribution from this site, which has S106 agreement in place.  It was confirmed that this large site providing approximately 1650 units comes with substantial associated infrastructure including a secondary school so from a planning point it is better to have a S106 agreement in place so that the development mitigates its own impact on the area. If CIL was applied it would make it unviable and the developer is likely to ask to reduce the amount of affordable housing provided.

·         Would it be possible to set out in any further report to the Panel what the CIL would be against the S106 monies?  It would demonstrate the actual costs being managed by the developer.

·         What is left for the Council to spend on leisure once all the big projects such as roads have been paid for?  These are funds from S106 and CIL funds. Head of Planning explained that the decision is for Members to consider.  Planning provides an Infrastructure Funding statement, this lists all the things that are needed for the Borough, the Council works with the County and developers and budgets to deliver those items.  Sometimes there is not enough money available to deliver everything on the list and Members have to choose along the lines of priority.  County would have view, as they provide most of the major projects within the Borough.

·         Town and Parish Councils are provided with 15% of CIL monies collected in their area by default (of the CIL contribution) and 25% if they have a Neighbourhood Plan in place.  But Hat 1 receives nothing due to S106 costs and their effect on viability leading to a zero CIL charge; some concern was expressed on this matter. It was felt to be unsatisfactory for certain areas. The Officer explained that Hatfield Town Council would not get the 15% of the CIL but would be benefit from the S106 funding.  There will be a master plan exercise and the Town Council will have the opportunity to input their aspirations and will receive its 15% share from other developments within its area.

RESOLVED:

(Unanimously)

That the Panel agrees that the CIL Draft Charging Schedule in Appendix A and Instalments Policy (Option D as set out in Appendix B) should be recommended to Cabinet for agreement for public consultation.